9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass, Adv. for the Appellant K. Sambi Reddy, JDR for the Respondent ORDER S.L. Peeran: 1. Both the appeals arise from the Orders-in-Appeal No.65/2005 Central Excise dated 3.3.2005 and 66/2005 Central Excise dated 10.3.2005 respectively. As the issue is common in both appeals, they are taken up together for the disposal as per law. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (204) ELT 570 (L.B.)]. (iv) Vinir Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2004 (168) ELT 34] (v) Soubhagya Confectionery (P) Ltd. vs. CCE [2005 (68) RLT 650] The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in the assessee's own case, the Revenue's appeal has been rejected [2005 (191) ELT 761] wherein the authorities had properly followed the procedure in carrying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure adopted in the impugned order is not correct. The learned Counsel submits that the short amount is due which is to be deposited. Therefore the confirmation of demand in the present case is not correct. We have perused the records and found that the confirmation of demand is not justified. The Revenue is bound to adjust the excess payment made by them with any demand due. The plea of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
